I watched out of accident a presentation on NOT TO CHASE by Brent Smith.
and it makes alot of sense.cause alot of my rejections come from chasing women or pursuing her...
or really pushing to make something happen which puts her on the pedestal up front.
and loses attraction. arash dibasar youtube on pedestal dont put her.
Brent Smoth made some really insightful things that I am doing unconcioulsy.
I also am logically controling my urges to chase, so I know I shouldnt chase.
My friedn Monique says "let her come to you" more you chase more her wall goes up"
and when you withdraw , she then escalates. cause she will go nuts."
"you dont have to try hard"
I found this insight on BRENT's game on another post:
Some things you should know about Brent Smith
I think generally when we hear rules, techniques, or some kind of theory, we tend to extrapolate it and generalize it across the board without knowing any further context (which is why some people are asking how to do brent smith game in day time).
I think knowing context is very important, because it is the context which brings meaning from content. After watching over 50 videos of Brent Smith here's what I think you should know:
If you take out all the law of attraction, positive thinking, and inner game work, his game is still very much limited contextually and the only reason he is able to get easy results is because of his very very tight form of screening. Essentially Brent Smith is screening all the way from the venue he's choosing, to the girls he sleeps with.
- He doesn't go to night clubs
- He doesn't do day game
- He doesn't initiate anything other than the opener and suggesting the girl to take his info or pull him
- He doesn't care about the quality of the girl, only if he can hook up with her
- He doesn't escalate
- He doesn't have dates
So think about it like this:
- His first form of screening is inner game: he only cares about girls he can hook up with.
- His second form of screening is venue selection: He only goes to venues where he can talk, and be social. Mainly lounges, bars, pubs, and social events. This alone will already reduce his "rejection rate" because people are coming to these venues to be social, they're not going there to dance, he's not going to sex clubs, and it's not day game where people are doing their own thing, or at a coffee shop where people are studying. He's going to venues where it's okay to be social, therefore this reduces his chance of rejection on the approach drastically.
- He doesn't initiate anything: He doesn't take numbers, probably his biggest form of screening, so the girls that are messaging him are essentially green girls. He's missing out on all the girls who aren't assertive enough to initiate, which is fine, and he admits this in one of his videos.
- He doesn't escalate: Why does escalation work? It arouses the girl to the point where it overrides her logical mind. By him not escalating he's getting girls that don't have Type 2 thinking, if they agree to go home with him without being aroused, then they're more likely to be Type 3. Also, escalation is more important in venues where you can't hear each other, like night clubs, which he doesn't go to. He only escalates when the girl is already at his place, in other words, she's agreed to sex logically. He also doesn't use plausible deniability, his text to the girl is "Drinks. 8pm. My place", again no plausible deniability = no confusion for the girl, if she agrees to that she's essentially agreeing to sex.
- He doesn't go on dates: He invites girls straight to his place. Again, another huge form of screening, out of all the girls that message him, there's probably a percentage that won't go straight to his place. By doing this he's screening out all the girls who are looking for providers. The only girls who would initiate him AND go to his place have to be Type 3s, or at least close to it.
So there you have it boys, when you only care about girls who are DTF + going to venues where people are social + don't initiate + invite girls straight to your place, your chance of rejection is very very low.
This is what I tell people what game is, it's screening + logistics + escalation. His screening portion is very very tight, that it handles everything else.
Will this work in a night club? day game? coffee shop? well, people are less likely to be social in these environments, so expect higher rejection rate.
Will this work if you initiate girls who are not DTF? again higher rejection rate
Will this work if you initiate girls logistically (text, phone numbers)? you're opening yourself to more variables, aka rejection.
Will this work if you escalate? Well emotions vs. logic = resistance. No escalation, no resistance. If a girl agrees to sex logically (Type 3), then the battle is over.
Will this work if you go on dates? You're opening yourself up to girls who are Type 2 and Type 1, again, more variables now, less chance of getting easy sex.
Is this less work and time than having more open screening? Depends on what you're looking for, if you just want sex, then yes because you're spending 1 hour talking to 20 girls (3 minutes each), rather than 1 hour per 1 girl (who may be higher quality and more than just sex for you).
He keeps conversation superficial and funny for this reason, he doesn't have time to get into deep rapport, nor would it help his style of game, which is to turn over as many rocks as possible in a short period of time. Otherwise he wouldn't get the girls that initiate him, which I'm guessing is a small percentage and therefore require more volume to find. Also you're not wasting time if you're talking to 1 girl for 1 hour and you don't want just sex, because if you can talk to a girl for more than 5-10 minutes (she didn't blow you off on the approach), then she's at least a yellow, and if she's at least a yellow and you have good game, then you could probably convert her.
To sum it all up, his game is lazy game to the core, his girls are the greenest of greens (Type 3).
Remember when you read theory or advice, always keep in mind the context
http://www.pua-zone.com/showthread.php?8037-Some-things-you-should-know-about-Brent-Smith
I preface this by saying that I am not really a "Brent Smith" guy, in that I advocate him like some others do on this board.
Dude, you are the king of taking a youtube video or internet article and portraying it as gospel without any personal experience or additional research, and as an economist that just ticks me off because a decent regression model isn't a project that takes more than an hour once you gather data...okay, rude part is out of the way, too.
If someone listens to what he does and incorporates ASPECTS into their game, it doesn't make them lazy. I don't think anyone here advocates modeling their life, to the minute detail, after any individual, because nobody's life is perfect. I respect the basic premise to this guy's ideas in that we should not waste time chasing women, because I think you actually can figure out within fifteen minutes if she has any desire to see you, let alone fuck you. Any longer is just your ego saying "nah, you're awesome, keep trying, you can do it, otherwise you have FAAAAAAIIIIIILED."
If you disagree, that's fine. I don't agree with everything he says, either, for some of the reasons you listed. That's not why I took issue with this post and decided to respond. I did so because I believe, with a dozen different general concepts of picking up women, each with another dozen sub-categories, it is foolish to take one concept as truth. If you can take older stuff like MM, gunwitch, Speed Seduction, mix in RSD, 60YOC, Brent Smith, hell those college kids that make the youtube vids approaching girls, WHOEVER...if you can take ideas from some philosophies or all of them and create your own game, that is how I think the best success comes. Adapt game to you, not the other way around.
I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree the moment you say "his idea isn't the best, mine is."
Good executive summary. I would like to see more posts like this: tons of approaches out there can be summarized in a post of this length or less, and it's so much more time efficient than picking up bits and pieces out of long-winded videos with tons of filler and repetition.
Regarding this particular instance: some things here I really like. Notably, how Brent's evaluation of a girl depends heavily on how into him she is, and that he doesn't give a single fuck about girls who won't hook up. This is the right frame in my opinion, and in fact I have an entire post in my head just about that.
Other things... I like less.
Caring about rejection at all is a red flag. You can and should reach a point in your game where rejection has very little effect on you. Surprisingly, this matters more in much later stages of a connection, when you are already in some sort of semi-stable FB/MLTR relationship.
Not caring about the quality of the girls - if that's actually true - is another red flag, perhaps even larger than the previous one. I haven't gotten laid THAT much, and I'm already inclined to pass on any girl who isn't sexually attractive to me. Something seems off with a guy who really doesn't care at all.
The other stuff makes sense. I went through a period where I mostly gave out my number and didn't even take theirs. It's very true that the girls that will call you under those circumstances are composed of a much higher percentage of DTFs. Combine that with his other methods of intense screening, and I'm sure he can get laid.
Only problem is, the quality of his girls is probably pretty low. I also get a strong sense he doesn't have many lasting relationships, or at least not satisfying ones.
--------
Originally Posted by DJ_Z
but I disagree the moment you say "his idea isn't the best, mine is."
Which I never said.. All I did was break down his game and show why it works. I never said it was bad, and I never put forth an idea of my own... By me breaking it down you can pick and choose which form of screening you want to apply in your game, for example, you can still do day game, but give girls your number as a form of screening, so that they initiate.
His game IS lazy game (which he says so himself), because of his extremely tight screening.
Originally Posted by Tarzan
Caring about rejection at all is a red flag. You can and should reach a point in your game where rejection has very little effect on you. Surprisingly, this matters more in much later stages of a connection, when you are already in some sort of semi-stable FB/MLTR relationship.
Thanks Tarzan.. I personally don't care about rejection, it's a time saver for me. However, it still doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Rejection can be useful so that you can learn to become more efficient. In this case, by caring about rejection Brent Smith has become extremely efficient, especially with venue selection and giving numbers.
Cheers.
------------------------
I disagree with this approach for a beginner. In my opinion here is how a beginner should learn game (credit bradp): take ONE method that gives actionable advice and follow it until you get consitent good results. If you are at 50 lays you can create your own game and take mixed ideas. Before you tried one method out for a long time, don't switch and don't read conflicting advise. For example this whole chasing vs non-chasing topic. There are guys i know from RSD who get laid every weekend they go out and one even got laid 6 times recently in vegas in 4 days, he even posted pictures of the girls. They do hardcore chasing game and it obviously works for them. Others who do passive (non-chasing) game get laid too. So both is possible..Its usually the guys that read the least theory and go out the most that eventually get laid the most.
---------------------
Originally Posted by JWS
those two statements are categorically incorrect. Where did you get that idea?
thats half true, except that he opens pretty much everyone and in a very powerful way.
again these two statements are 100% incorrect. My apologies but I quit reading here - 4.5 out of 5 statements are the exact opposite of what I know about Mr. Smith.
Good luck and have fun
- In his product Bulletproof Banter students ask him questions about night clubs, and other environments, and he says he only goes to venues that he can socialize in like lounges, bars and pubs.
- He says he doesn't care about how attractive a girl is, only if he might be hooking up with her, in a the "How to avoid being a creepy pursuer" video series. He also reiterates this in some of his other videos.
- The only initiating he does is opening (regardless if powerful or not), giving a number, or suggesting the girl pull him.
- Escalation subject is iffy, because he avoids it, but I remember him saying that he doesn't escalate because it's pursuing. He was giving an example of guys running around the venue escalating and how it's creepy and pursuing.
Originally Posted by animal
I disagree with this approach for a beginner. In my opinion here is how a beginner should learn game (credit bradp): take ONE method that gives actionable advice and follow it until you get consitent good results. If you are at 50 lays you can create your own game and take mixed ideas. Before you tried one method out for a long time, don't switch and don't read conflicting advise. For example this whole chasing vs non-chasing topic. There are guys i know from RSD who get laid every weekend they go out and one even got laid 6 times recently in vegas in 4 days, he even posted pictures of the girls. They do hardcore chasing game and it obviously works for them. Others who do passive (non-chasing) game get laid too. So both is possible..Its usually the guys that read the least theory and go out the most that eventually get laid the most.
At the end of the day, if you want results, you gotta invest energy and do the work. Doesn't matter if it's conflicting advice or not. You're going to get results if you step out of the house and talks to girls and move things forward. All advice out there on the internet that's about seduction says to move things forward. Yeah, if you do chase game, you're doing huge volume too, and that will get you results. Brent Smith is doing volume too, except at the beginning. Everyone is doing volume, there isn't anyone I know who is NOT doing volume to get results (maybe other than newman and his crazy stories ). Whether it's cold, warm, social context, whatever, it's all the same.
-------------------------------------------
Too many assumptions here. It's very easy to misunderstand the attitude he's trying to convey when you're thinking all in 'mechanical' mode.
You're still too 'technique' focused to get what Brent is talking about. Too focused on the 'mechanics' of what he does and not enough focused on the attitude, the emotion, the social/psychological/sexual power in it.
You're also missing huge pieces of the puzzle here. I can see this being a problem for guys who are all surface focused where it's do this = get this instant result. Female psychology doesn't work that way.
What he teaches applies to ANY guy regardless of what buttons he is trying to push, what levers he's trying to pull and what 'technique' he puts into it.
He teaches guys to be TRUE Alphas, not fake ones who are putting up a show in order to push some buttons and get a result.
Yes, it is lazy guys game, because lazy is powerful. The one putting in the most effort is the least powerful one. The part that you are missing there is that it is attractive. I don't quite get all this 'green', 'yellow', 'red' thinking because I think that's bullshit. I think attraction is dynamic.... women aren't walking around with giant green or red signs on their head that NEVER change. Women are constantly in emotional flux, their sexual state changes, etc. You can see both the positive side of that (attraction where none was before), and the negative (she suddenly stops paying attention to you for seemingly no reason whatsoever) So I think whoever came up with that theory is bunk.
Instead, to Brent, everything is GREEN! Why is that? Because he knows that it's a total waste of energy to focus on that, precisely because it's not a static thing. Women will feel the energy and be drawn into it, attracted to it. When you're not pursuing you won't even notice that change in a womans attraction level because in his world all women on his radar are attracted to him, which, in effect, causes even more women to become attracted.
It's the snowball effect. I don't understand at all this 'static' thinking about women either being attracted to you or not. As if it's written in stone. On top of that, no need to worry about changing that, women change on their own, in the presence of a true Alpha male archetype, like what Brent describes.
That's why his word 'inspire' is so powerful. He knows women aren't static (a weird concept only brought up on this forum) You are not trying to 'technique' the women into becoming 'greens', they are inspired to become attracted to you, without you trying to push it on them.
About Brent not caring about attractiveness level, no he doesn't, but what you miss is the side effect of that is that hotter women become attracted, because they rarely meet a guy who isn't impressed by beauty. The ability to 'walk away' from a hot woman is not the same as 'only accepting not so hot ones'.
So many bad assumptions here, it's giving me a migraine..... part of the reason why I think this forum is both a blessing and a curse. Addictive and lots of good info, but also lots of bad assumptions, limiting beliefs, horrible mindsets can be annoying.
----------------------
No, conflicting advice is bad. If one guru tells you to take the number of the girl and another tells you that taking the number is pursuing then this conflict will hinder your progress. What do you do next time you have a cute girl in front of you and you have to leave her? One guru will tell you to be indirect and another will tell you to be super direct. Don't start with MM and do it for 2 month and if you don't get success stop it and switch to direct game. Instead keep doing it for another lets say 3 or 4 month, try to find out every step and everything you do wrong within the method and then you can change your approach if you still don't get any results from it after half a year or more (going out 3 times a week). Same with chasing/non-chasing..Choose one path and follow it without looking back, don't do it half-assed.
Unless you have enough reference experience of your own you cannot know what advice works better for you
---------------
At the end of the day, if you want results, you gotta invest energy and do the work. Doesn't matter if it's conflicting advice or not. You're going to get results if you step out of the house and talks to girls and move things forward. All advice out there on the internet that's about seduction says to move things forward. Yeah, if you do chase game, you're doing huge volume too, and that will get you results. Brent Smith is doing volume too, except at the beginning. Everyone is doing volume, there isn't anyone I know who is NOT doing volume to get results (maybe other than newman and his crazy stories ). Whether it's cold, warm, social context, whatever, it's all the same.
